Feeds

Google exposes Buzz private parts

It's all about giving users 'transparency and control'

Secure remote control for conventional and virtual desktops

Google is trying its best to ward off privacy watchdogs by asking Buzz users to hit rewind on the creepy real-time service.

The company, keen to be seen to be doing the right thing, is asking users to reconfirm their privacy settings - to make sure that they’re not spooked by the level of information they're giving away.

Google aggressively slotted Buzz into Gmail earlier this year. Within hours of Buzz’s unholy arrival, the ad broker was shot to pieces by angry users for its ungraceful efforts to turn a free online email service into something more akin to Twitter and Facebook.

Yesterday, Google scrambled to remind users who have unwittingly overlooked Mountain View’s rehashed Buzz privacy settings to take a proper look and make sure they’re not giving away too much information via the service.

“Rather than automatically setting you up to follow the people you email and chat with most, Google Buzz now suggests people for you to follow instead. This way, Buzz is still simple to set up (no one wants to peck out an entire social network from scratch) but you aren't set up to follow anyone until you choose to do so,” said Buzz product manager Todd Jackson yesterday.

“But many of you started using Google Buzz before we made these changes, and we want to help you ensure that Buzz is set up the way you want. Offering everyone who uses our products transparency and control is very important to us, so if you started using Google Buzz before we changed the start-up experience, you'll see [a] confirmation page the next time you click into the Buzz tab.”

Of course, Google only tweaked Buzz’s privacy settings after it clamped the software onto Gmail. It then waited for the backlash to kick off before admitting it was wrong, then made a few changes to Buzz, including simple stuff like making it easier for users to locate the privacy settings page.

But since then the criticism levelled against Google hasn’t gone away. If anything, it has intensified.

In February the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) grumbled about Mountain View’s privacy cock-up with Buzz. And just last week 11 US lawmakers called on the FTC to investigate allegations that Google had revealed personal details of its users without first securing their consent.

But surely Google’s latest efforts to remind Buzz users about their privacy settings has nothing to do with any such probe of its service by US regulators, does it? ®

The essential guide to IT transformation

More from The Register

next story
Apple promises to lift Curse of the Drained iPhone 5 Battery
Have you tried turning it off and...? Never mind, here's a replacement
Mozilla's 'Tiles' ads debut in new Firefox nightlies
You can try turning them off and on again
Linux turns 23 and Linus Torvalds celebrates as only he can
No, not with swearing, but by controlling the release cycle
Scratched PC-dispatch patch patched, hatched in batch rematch
Windows security update fixed after triggering blue screens (and screams) of death
This is how I set about making a fortune with my own startup
Would you leave your well-paid job to chase your dream?
prev story

Whitepapers

Endpoint data privacy in the cloud is easier than you think
Innovations in encryption and storage resolve issues of data privacy and key requirements for companies to look for in a solution.
Implementing global e-invoicing with guaranteed legal certainty
Explaining the role local tax compliance plays in successful supply chain management and e-business and how leading global brands are addressing this.
Advanced data protection for your virtualized environments
Find a natural fit for optimizing protection for the often resource-constrained data protection process found in virtual environments.
Boost IT visibility and business value
How building a great service catalog relieves pressure points and demonstrates the value of IT service management.
Next gen security for virtualised datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.